I do not believe a permissive license has any notion of consent. You can’t stop someone from forking your code as long as they follow the rules of the license, like crediting you.
Even in GPL, you can’t stop someone from using your code, see Gnome’s recent arguements with Mint over their usage of an old version of their Calender app.
Others in the thread have mentioned we’ll see permissive licenses with exceptions for Ai in the near future. It’s a solution because that door is currently open.
You can’t stop someone from forking your code as long as they follow the rules of the license, like crediting you
In that case,though, you’re still respecting the wishes of the person applying that permissive license consensually, though.
That’s VERY different from mass harvesting all data without permission (or credit) for profit, which would probably be against the terms of even the most permissive licenses.
Their claim was they followed the licenses and only used code they were implicitly allowed to use. I’d like to see if that was just astroturf and bullshit.
Honestly, though this is one of the reasons why people prefer copyleft and avoid permissive licenses, because yeah anyone can profit monetarily off your work otherwise.
Sure but you moved the goalpost from ‘‘they weren’t allowed’’ to “they aren’t being honest”. There’s people in this thread who are in the repos, so we can find that out without assuming.
Also, at least their model is opensource and can easily be selfhosted on consumer hardware. Helps with your datacenter point from earlier. Like if this project does what it says its supposed to do, it’s genuinely interesting. If they are pushing the boundaries of permissive licensing then yeah that is really concerning.
…do you know what the word “consensually” means? 🤦🏻
I do not believe a permissive license has any notion of consent. You can’t stop someone from forking your code as long as they follow the rules of the license, like crediting you.
Even in GPL, you can’t stop someone from using your code, see Gnome’s recent arguements with Mint over their usage of an old version of their Calender app.
Others in the thread have mentioned we’ll see permissive licenses with exceptions for Ai in the near future. It’s a solution because that door is currently open.
In that case,though, you’re still respecting the wishes of the person applying that permissive license consensually, though.
That’s VERY different from mass harvesting all data without permission (or credit) for profit, which would probably be against the terms of even the most permissive licenses.
Their claim was they followed the licenses and only used code they were implicitly allowed to use. I’d like to see if that was just astroturf and bullshit.
Honestly, though this is one of the reasons why people prefer copyleft and avoid permissive licenses, because yeah anyone can profit monetarily off your work otherwise.
Was likely bullshit. Just like just about everything else people behind for profit LLMs say about their business practices.
Almost certainly
Sure but you moved the goalpost from ‘‘they weren’t allowed’’ to “they aren’t being honest”. There’s people in this thread who are in the repos, so we can find that out without assuming.
Also, at least their model is opensource and can easily be selfhosted on consumer hardware. Helps with your datacenter point from earlier. Like if this project does what it says its supposed to do, it’s genuinely interesting. If they are pushing the boundaries of permissive licensing then yeah that is really concerning.
No. I included the lack of honesty in my original explanation.
If anyone’s moving goalposts, it’s you with your constant shifting from one point to the other to excuse their behavior.
Unless OP is a total lie, they clearly are.
Why are you assuming I am excusing their behaviour?
Because you keep grasping for completely hypothetical scenarios in which it’s excusable.